Search This Blog

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Dying and yet living. Jesus, remarkably designed organisms and the normal Christian life.

Jesus Christ could lay down his life and take it up again.  He raised up Lazarus from the dead after several days, brought a little girl back to life but it was His own death, burial and resurrection that was the greatest miracle of all.   Because only God in the form of man could be big enough to take the punishment and shame for all sins and human enough to be an appropriate sacrifice, a man who was tempted by all forms of sin but preferred His Father's will from the day of His birth until...well, there is no until with God.   God invented time along with the temporal world and He decides when the creation He made will be ended.   Some believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics foretell of the death of the Universe, but Earth as a habitable planet would be ruined by the eventual death throes of our star, the Sun.   Like a wound watch winding down, the created world must end but God the Creator has said that He will decide when that end comes.   I do not believe He waits for entropy to do the work for Him.   When every child of God has decided to follow Him and when all who hate God have made their final rejection of His offered salvation, that is when this world will be burned up like flash paper and gone.

Science can see that organisms are designed.   The myth of "junk DNA" has been debunked, the fairy tale of abiogenesis is just that, as Pasteur said, a "chimera."   Only in the warped minds of absolute materialists do universes make themselves.   Naturalism has no creative explanation for anything at all, whether physical or immaterial.   There is no evidence for infinite universes (a contradiction in terms there) but, if that was considered, there would be one with a Creator God who made them all.   There is no way out for the naturalistic materialist via scientific investigation.   You do understand that science is devoted to casting aside what cannot be until there is only one possibility found?   You do realize that a created Universe was never falsified by anyone at any time?   There was never a scientific reason to abandon creation by God.   This was always a metaphysical hostile takeover of science by zealous atheopaths!    

In the world of organisms there are innumerable irreducibly complex systems and symbiotic relationships more convoluted and inter-related than the six degrees of Kevin Bacon!    So go ahead and tell me how the Monarch Butterfly could have evolved?   Can you explain how mankind can think and reason and be creative?   Exactly how many bison can I kill for dinner with a poem, a song, a work of art?   How can information be so vital to life and have no material substance at all?   How can life be at all, as it also has no substance to it?   No one can present you with a gram of life in a box.   Try to think for a minute, all of you who have taken evolution for granted.   Don't you think if the proponents of evolution actually had any proof to present they would have shouted it from the rooftops long ago?   Anyone who can prove evolution ever happens can pocket a nice big chunk of cash, but no Darwinist will dare try because they love their money and they fear the humiliation of defeat.  

Adnan Oktar offered a king's ransom for proof of evolution.  No one dared try.

The life science prize includes this verbiage: 

Rules for the Life Science Prize Mini-Trial 

1. The evolutionist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.
2. The creationist, Joseph Mastropaolo, puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.
3. If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and creation is religion, then the evolutionist is awarded the $20,000.
4. If the creationist proves creation is science and evolution is religion, then the creationist is awarded the $20,000.
5. Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated.
6. The preponderance of evidence prevails.
7. At the end of the trial, the judge hands the prevailing party both checks. 8. The judge is a superior court judge.
9. The venue is a courthouse.
10. Court costs will be paid by the prevailing party.

Alternative Rules for the Life Science Prize Mini-Trial To accommodate, especially those fearful of contending against creation, these modified rules were offered in vain to some organizations, some universities, and some evolutionists like Dr. Francisco Ayala. 

1. The evolutionist puts a $10,000 check in escrow with the judge.
2. The devolutionist, Joseph Mastropaolo, puts a $10,000 check in escrow with the judge.
3. If the evolutionist proves evolution is science, then the evolutionist is awarded the $20,000.
4. If the devolutionist proves that devolution, the opposite of evolution, is science, then the devolutionist is awarded the $20,000.
5. Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated.
6. The preponderance of evidence prevails.
7. At the end of the trial, the judge hands the prevailing party both checks.
8. The judge is a superior court judge.
9. The venue is a courthouse.
10. Court costs will be paid by the prevailing party.

Note. There is no limit to the number or qualifications of those on the evolutionist's side. If the evolutionist has the scientific evidence, then there is also no limit to how many times the evolutionist may contend and win $10,000. 

Why don't all of these oh-so certain evolution-pushers like Richard Dawkins pick up some free money?   Want to take a guess?  We used to say that "Money talks, b______t walks."

Keep walking, Darwinists.   But don't think for one minute that you can fool either God or real scientists.   This charade cannot be kept up for much longer.   Despite all the money and time and marketing for Darwinism the thoughtful individual balks at the idea and the critical thinker eventually rejects it.   Some like Dr. Henry Morris realized it in mid-life, some like Anthony Flew came to their senses late in life and some like Peter Hitchens found himself a believer in both God and creation while his brother was the opposite.   Brilliant scientific minds like Von Braun and Kelvin and Newton and Maxwell and Bacon stood upon faith in Christ as they reached for truth in scientific pursuit of what can be known by testing and observation.   Not for one minute would any of them stand for an artificial imposition of naturalism upon scientific investigation.   Methodological naturalism is a religious idea completely separate from science.

To quote from the excellent blog WisdomForLife:

"...We humans deeply and innately sense that there is more to life than this life. I suspect that this also helps to explain the strange energy of protest behind the odd (and relatively recent) brand of militant atheism in men like Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris. These men want so desperately to be known as evangelists of all things rational and logical. Yet they are glaringly blind to the deep inconsistencies and irrational agendas of their own mission.
 
Another well-known atheist, Bertrand Russell, once cast a more honest and depressing vision of human meaning (which I am equally certain he would now recant): “Man is the product of causes which hand no prevision of the end they were achieving and which predestine him to extinction in the vast death of the solar system.” This is a far more logical conclusion for atheism.

Scottish agnostic, Richard Holloway, offered a perceptive reflection when he groaned,

“This is my dilemma. I am dust and ashes, frail and wayward, a set of predetermined behavioral responses, … riddled with fear, beset with needs…the quintessence of dust and unto dust I shall return…. But there is something else in me…. Dust I may be, but troubled dust, dust that dreams, dust that has strong premonitions of transfiguration, of a glory in store, a destiny prepared, an inheritance that will one day be my own…so my life is spread out in a painful dialectic between ashes and glory, between weakness and transfiguration. I am a riddle to myself, an exasperating enigma…the strange duality of dust and glory.”

Did you ever think that perhaps we were meant for more? Maybe human purpose is meant to have deeper connections than the fleeting experiences of a temporal world? Many people make it their lifelong goal to find a lifelong goal only to find that despising their own meaninglessness is the most tangible meaning they can discover.

Let’s be honest enough to admit that a longing for deeper meaning is universal to humanity.  We’re driven toward it as if it is our birthright or a kind of necessary spiritual oxygen. We’ve been told that our pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. We are seeking creatures by nature and we often conceal the deeper realities of our pursuit with lots of temporal fillers. Just one more vacation, one more purchase, one more party, one more relationship, one more round of drinks — and on it goes. Like Dorothy, we’re off to see the Wizard, the Wonderful Wizard of Oz — only to draw back the curtain in disappointment time and time again.

Perhaps it seems predictable to quote C. S. Lewis, but he was right when he postulated, “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”

There is so much truth in Augustine’s famous prayer: “Everlasting God, in whom we live and move and have our being: You have made us for Yourself, and hearts are restless until they rest in You.”

On some level, Jesus would have agreed with the subtitle to Hitchens’ book,How religion poisons everything.” Jesus invested large amounts of  teaching to opposing religion. Religious people hated Jesus and, unlike Hitchens, Jesus was put to death by a plot inspired by religious people. With great passion, they looked for opportunities to kill Jesus."

You see, to live for Christ is to die to self.   It is easy to live for yourself.   It is almost impossible to put God's will ahead of your own.   You have to seek to die to your own self every day.   In First Corinthians 15:31 Paul said, "...I die daily..." but to truly make this comprehensible to you I will quote from Galatians 2:20:

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."


The ironic thing about this blog is that I am not a religious man and I do not like religion.   I am a man of faith.   Faith is all about relationship with God and not about "do this" and "don't do that."   I have no respect for legalism and I do not seek formalism, although some who love formalism also love Christ.   You choose your flavor of God as long as it is Jesus Christ the Savior who is the source.  Yet the Darwinists of the comments threads are the religious ones!   How odd this is, that the Christian is the one who is free and the Darwinist is tied to his dogmatic religion like a dog out in the yard.   I would that they would all be free as am I! 

Do not mistake my confidence in my Savior for arrogance or self-satisfaction.   The fact is that the very minute that the Christian life gets comfortable then it is no longer normal Christianity.  I have stood in between a drunk with a .45 and a drunk the size of a NFL lineman and put my life on the line to save a life, and yet I am not man enough to tell everyone I know about Jesus every day.   I have to push myself to be more like Christ and less like myself.  My church was not meant to be a country club of friendly folks, it is supposed to be a hospital for the hurting, a battle zone for those held hostage by sin, a charge of warriors seeking to beat down the doors of Hell!   

I care not for prizes to be given out in Heaven for what is done for Christ, because what He does in me is either powered by Him or it is done by me.  What I do in my own strength will not be worth anything that has eternal value, it is when I am His servant that I can do anything of worth.   I do not fear condemnation from Christ because I did not witness to someone but I do not wish to see anyone fling himself into Hell.   So every day and every hour and every minute there is a battle with my flesh to push down the me and lift up the Him within me.   This blog is a labor of love for others, it is me making myself seem foolish to Darwinists and drawing their derision.   The call me stupid, the call me a liar, they seek to make me angry.  Yet I love them. 

Dying to Live Another Day

Suspended Animation

by Heather Brinson Bruce



Death holds a morbid curiosity for many people. Its unexplained mysteries and its darkness bring out our curiosity. The recent resurgence of vampire and zombie lore is a perfect example. These creatures of horror seem to defy death. Is death something we should laugh at, be scared of, or willingly embrace?

Since Adam’s Fall, death has haunted life. Death is a nasty intruder, and we spend our lives trying to avoid and ignore it.

Animals seem to share our distaste of death, avoiding dead creatures they didn’t kill. Some animals seem especially well equipped to escape death’s clutches, at least for a time. Through various forms of suspended animation, some animals appear to die, only to return to the land of the living after hours, months, or even years.

Water Bear

 


Credit: Eye of Science | Photo Researchers, Inc.

A water bear can survive without water for decades.

Perhaps one of the most stunning examples of these death-defying creatures is the tardigrade, more commonly known as the water bear. As their name suggests, water is just as important to these one-millimeter water bears’ survival as to any other life form. But they can live for nearly a century without it. They do this by “killing” themselves.

When the patch of moss they live in begins to dry out, water bears start shutting their systems down. They fold their eight legs into themselves, bend in half, and secrete a waxy substance over their surface. The wax helps prevent the loss of water while the water bear is in the “tun” state. Their metabolism shuts down—they are essentially dead.

But even decades later, the simple addition of water brings these tenacious critters back to life. The water bear resumes its ponderous gait, eating and reproducing as if nothing extraordinary had occurred.

Lungfish

 


Tom McHugh | Photo Researchers, Inc.

A lungfish can avoid drought by cocooning itself underground for up to four years.

The water bear doesn’t have a monopoly on escaping death. Lungfish, found in Africa and South America, use a different trick to avoid the effects of drought. By undergoing an extreme version of seasonal dormancy called estivation, lungfish can survive for years without water. Estivation is similar to hibernation, but the goal is to avoid drought and intense heat rather than severe cold and food shortages. After all what is a fish to do when the lake dries out?

Before the water is completely gone, lungfish dig into the mud and get comfortable. As the mud hardens, the lungfish wraps itself in a presumably waterproof cocoon, open only at the mouth. This allows the air-breathing fish to continue respiration. The lungfish remains underground until water returns. It can wait for up to four years!

The lungfish can survive so long because it reduces its metabolism to as little as one-sixtieth the normal level. Imagine if yesterday’s meal kept you satisfied for two months. Just add water (enough to swim in), and the lungfish will leave its dugout to resume normal activity.

Striped Burrowing Frog

 


Courtesy of Pete Reid

A striped burrowing frog buries itself for up to seven years.

The striped burrowing frog also digs into the mud when times get hard. But these frogs can survive for seven years in suspended animation before needing to emerge. During estivation, each of the frog’s cells retools its engines, called mitochondria, thereby increasing efficiency. This is the biological version of just having the pilot light on.

The mitochondrion is the “power plant” of the cell. By increasing its efficiency, more energy can be produced, stretching the frogs’ last meal and fat reserves much further. Frogs depend on wet conditions almost as much as fish do, so such special designs are essential to survival. The return of water works magic for these frogs.

This raises the question—why don’t all animals have such efficient mitochondria? Mitochondria need oxygen to generate energy molecules. Unfortunately, the presence of oxygen also produces molecules known as free radicals. These molecules can wreak havoc on DNA, proteins, and other parts of the cell. The more free radicals in your system, the more damage that must be repaired.

During estivation, striped burrowing frogs can reduce their metabolism by as much as 82%, consequently dropping their oxygen demand. This in turn produces very few free radicals to cope with. When frogs come out of estivation, they produce a special protein that protects them from those mischievous free radicals.

Mountain Stone Weta

 


www.rodmorris.co.nz

The mountain stone weta, a large insect in New Zealand, can survive being frozen for the entire winter.

All these animals “die” waiting for the water to return. But the mountain stone weta—a large insect in New Zealand—can survive being frozen in a block of ice, reemerging after the water melts away. Though it sounds simple, it is impossible for most forms of life to survive being frozen.

The reason? Water expands, forming ice crystals as it freezes. While this is handy for floating ice and beautiful snowflakes, it means that water in any cell will burst the cell’s membrane, with disastrous results. How does the weta survive?

The weta’s blood is very different from people’s. Called hemolymph, it is full of special sugars that prevent the water from crystallizing into mini ice chunks. This preserves the cell structure and allows the weta to survive temperatures down to 14°F (-10°C) for several months. Once it warms up, the weta thaws and resumes life.

Opossum 

 


© Charles Schug | iStockphoto.com

An opossum can avoid predators by appearing dead and unresponsive for hours.

While all these animals use suspended animation to escape inhospitable habitats, some animals use it to escape a more immediate threat—predators.

The obvious example of such behavior is the opossum of North America (not to be confused with the possum found in Australia). In fact, the opossum is so well known for its ability to play dead that it has infiltrated our language. But what does it mean to “play (o)possum”?

When an opossum is threatened with no avenue of escape, it will hiss to scare the threat away. Failing that, it will play its ace in the hole. The opossum will draw its lips back, foam at the mouth, and fall to its side. Its eyes will half-close and a foul-smelling fluid will start oozing. The body will be so stiff and unresponsive that the opossum won’t respond when poked, bitten, or even carried off. The entire display hinges on one vital principle—predators would rather kill their own dinner. Eating a stinky animal that just “died” might be a sure-fire way to come to your own smelly end.

All this may be old news to some people. Opossums play dead to avoid being eaten, so what? The miracle of this death is that scientists don’t understand how the opossum does it. They can’t figure out whether the opossum consciously controls its display of “apparent death” or if it’s triggered automatically in high-stress situations. The reduced heart rate and breathing is analogous to a person fainting, which is not a controllable reaction. But studies show that the opossum’s brain activity is just as engaged and alert as ever. Once the threat dissipates, the opossum wakes up in a matter of minutes.

Hognose Snake 

 


© Mgkuijpers | Dreamstime.com

A hognose snake can avoid predators by appearing dead and unresponsive for hours.

The hognose snake seems to take a page out of the opossum’s playbook but with more flair. When his imitation of a cobra fails to impress, he begins his great death scene. The snake will flip over onto his back with his mouth agape and tongue hanging out and writhe on the ground in abject agony. Once he is sufficiently covered in debris and excrement, he will lie there, smelling like a sewer until he is left alone. In fact, he is so dedicated to his performance that should you have the audacity to turn him right side up, he’ll reflexively flip himself back over. Nevertheless it doesn’t seem to ruin the effectiveness of the ruse. The minute you move on, so will he.

Absolute Victory

Genesis 3 explains where death came from. Adam and Eve chose to disobey God. While some animals have the ability to delay death for a time, each one will still die. The promise of Jesus Christ gave hope that God would conquer death, not merely delay its arrival. So while these animal designs remind us about our natural desire to defy death, our efforts merely delay the inevitable. Only Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross, the innocent for the guilty, could defeat death and open the way for each of us to enjoy eternal life. “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).

The Science of Staying Still

ANHYDROBIOSIS is a state of suspended animation that allows a creature to survive without water. The water bear’s skill at this has inspired research into new ways to prepare vaccines. If doctors could produce a dry vaccine, more people could benefit.

ESTIVATION (or aestivation) occurs when an animal needs to avoid severe heat and dry conditions. Typically, the animal buries itself in the ground, where temperatures are cooler, and reduces its metabolism until conditions turn favorable.

THANATOSIS is the process of animals’ feigning death. It is often used as a defense, as demonstrated by the opossum and the hognose snake.

HIBERNATION is common among rodents like chipmunks (but bears do not hibernate, despite the popular myths). This conserves resources when food is scarce. Hibernation can last for days or months, depending on the animal, temperature, and time of year.

BRUMATION is the reptilian version of hibernation. Reptiles’ activity drops to almost nothing, although they still need to drink occasionally. Reptiles can brumate for up to eight months.

DENNING is what bears do (a milder form of hibernation). When a bear dens, its sleep is undisturbed through the winter (except when females have cubs). Additionally, its body temperature drops only slightly, as opposed to the drastic drops in true hibernation.

DIAPAUSE occurs when insects and certain fish face harmful environmental conditions. By putting development on hold, the animal can recommence development when favorable conditions return.

Heather Brinson Bruce earned dual degrees in English and chemistry from Clemson University. She writes and edits for Answers magazine as part of the full-time staff.

30 comments:

Anonymous whatsit said...

It's really not that hard to see why nobody would go near that "challenge", and fear has absolutely nothing to do with it:

1. The guy you'd be up against is a complete nutjob who can't answer the simplest of questions about his theories. (Witness the comment section on this post: radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2010/07/batting-cleanup-dr-joseph-mastropaolo.html ).

When he was asked: "what is the scientific evidence for devolution? ", he didn't bother with any reasonable response and instead went straight to: "Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?"

It went downhill from there.

Seriously, anybody who hasn't heard of this guy has to read that comment thread and you will completely understand why the man's "challenge" is rightly ignored.

2. Considering the time suckage any interaction with such a person would represent, the 10 grand MINUS court costs (which are supposed to be paid by the prevailing party, for some reason) don't really amount to much. Most people I know are capable of making more money in less time - without tying up 10 grand of their own in the process.

3. The challenge itself is ridiculously vague: "If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and creation is religion"/"If the creationist proves creation is science and evolution is religion"/"If the devolutionist proves that devolution, the opposite of evolution, is science". With terms so vague and keeping in mind the precarious nature of Mastropaolo's own mental state, can you imagine how this ridiculous discussion would drag out over months, even years?

Why can't Mr. Mastropaolo present any scientific evidence for devolution? For that matter, why can't you, Radar? You've been claiming it virtually as fact for some time now. Where's the scientific evidence for it? Seriously, where is it?

4. The matter of creationism being science has already been tested in the courts, thank you very much. Creationism lost that time. The response from creationists? Oh, the judge was corrupt or ignorant or whatever. Why should anyone believe it would be different if we went through the same rigmarole again?

Anonymous said...

"The ironic thing about this blog is that I am not a religious man and I do not like religion. I am a man of faith."

Yep, you can cut the irony with a knife here.

"Faith is all about relationship with God and not about "do this" and "don't do that.""

So how do you feel about the 10 Commandments? Optional?

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, embarrassed silence.

Still...

Seriously, Radar - you don't feel that you have to live up to the 10 Commandments?

radar said...

"Seriously, Radar - you don't feel that you have to live up to the 10 Commandments?"

I doubt you will want to understand, but I will answer anyway. No one can live up to the 10 Commandments all of the time. Not you, not me, and anyone who pretends they do is not fooling God and I do hope they do not fool themselves. Do you know those commandments? Do you live them every day?

A Christian is a person who realizes that he/she is incapable of being perfect AND that perfection is required to be in the presence of a Holy God. Judgment has been handed down against all who sin = death and Hell. What can one do?

The answer is Jesus Christ. God did not go to all the trouble of making a Universe and then let mankind ruin everything and have it all become ruled by evil and sin and death. We needed to have choices between being obedient or rebellion lest we be robots. We had the choice and we disobeyed.

So Jesus came to be born into the world as a man and yet be God. He laid down His power and received power from the Holy Spirit by being completely connected and obedient to the Father. Part one.

radar said...

Jesus did everything God commanded, obeyed all laws, did good everywhere He went and performed the miracles God the Father directed Him to perform, thus fulfilling the law. He then allowed Himself to be taken in by the authorities and religious leaders, beaten, humiliated, tortured, mocked and crucified. He took the sins of all mankind upon Himself as He was dying, thus, being separated from the Godhead for the first and only time. Thus the cry, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!?" which is translated "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

This sin, this separation, I believe it was what caused him such grief as He prayed before allowing the soldiers to come and take him away for an illegal middle of the night trial. It was not so much fear of pain or death, it was becoming what He hated (sin) and being alone, separated from God.

This was necessary to pay for my sins and yours. So Christ paid my price and sought me all my life until I realized Jesus Christ was real and I repented of my sins and asked Jesus to be my Savior and Lord. It was not a ceremony or act, it was simply a decision to take the gift offered to me.

So I have a relationship with God and it is constant. He knows my heart and every thought and deed. Such transparency into my innermost self is now a great freedom. When I am obeying Him I am happy to do it and when I go off track He knows and understands and forgives.

This is why forgiveness towards others is so important for Christians and it is also why religion is an enemy of God. Relationship with God is a living, breathing thing lived out second by second. I do not wear my clothes or put in my offering or go places or do things to impress God or man. I do seek just to follow His will for my life.

radar said...

Now, I do not wish to offend some of my Christian friends who belong to a church that practices ceremonial things. The relationship with Jesus matters. I know Catholics who know that it is Jesus who saves, not ceremonies but they love their ceremonies so why not? If attending Mass is part of your life and you do not substitute it for salvation it cannot hurt.

It is those who depend on ceremony to save them, or being baptized as an infant to save them, or the prayers of others to save them, or chanting or meditation or any actions in and of themselves. Belonging to a church will not save you. Giving money will not save you. Wearing your hair short and your skirts long will not save you.

From being a party animal to becoming a Christian, I went to a church where people dressed up for church. Men wore ties and ladies wore dresses. If you were on stage to sing or teach you wore a suit and tie. I did that but didn't do it to be saved, I was just getting along with the other Christians. Later I realized some of them were depending on things like appearance to save them. This is legalism. I do not adhere to such things now.

The church I attend, you can wear shorts if you like, you can wear a White Sox T-shirt (I like my #14, Paul Konerko model, and wear it to church now and then). In fact, the head Youth Pastor wears shorts to Youth Group whether he is giving the message or not. Some folks have tattoos and some have piercings and some wear a shirt and tie. It doesn't matter!!!

Darwinists, you cannot understand Christianity by watching TV, most of the folks (not all) who have TV shows are just in the business of making money from Christianity and that might give them three houses and servants and a private jet and a couple of fancy cars, but they will discover God is not for such behavior. In fact, I suspect a lot of TV "pastors" are not even Christians at all. The way some of them behave, I sure hope not! I cannot understand a pastor making millions of dollars and not giving large quantities of that away to help others?

You will discover that a real man or woman of faith depends on a relationship with God, an understanding of the Bible, the intention to follow God's will and the willingness to fight against his or her own natural selfishness. Jesus is a life-changing Savior, but He is not a magic wand making everyone perfect under the Sun. I will stand before God the Father completely forgiven and cleansed of all sins by the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ and not on my own merits. I do my best to live up to Jesus and tell my selfish nature to shut up so I can hear the still, small voice of God.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

Sometimes you have some interesting points. Sometimes.

The origin of life. The origin of the universe. The addition and creation of information which led from very simple life to what we see today. As a "darwinist", these are things I don't think "darwinists" have great answers to (and they may never) (and this doesn't lead me to say god did it).

But when you roll out such garbage as Dr. Mastropaulo's Life Science Prize and cite and link to it with such authority as if it proves some sort of point...these things rip to shreds any credibility you might have had and lead a more rationale person to think you'll post anything that shares a common purpose as you have no matter the reputability and credibility of that content.

Have you read Dr. M's website? Besides all the problems Whatsit points out, can you really think of no other reason why any sane person would ignore Dr. M? Go back and read the comments on the link Whatsit posted---- I remember that thread but must've stopped reading back then, because I don't remember it getting that long and Dr. M spiraling that far into absurdity. Wow. WHO WOULD GET INVOLVED WITH THAT LUNATIC?

If you need even more reason why no rational person would take up Dr. M, let me know. I can easily add a dozen to whatsit's list.

But, you are the person who still cites to those Acambro dinosaur figurines as evidence of man and dinosaur coexisting....so you probably won't get it....so it goes.

lava

radar said...

Lava, what evidence do you have that debunks the Acambaro figurines? They have been proved pretty well beyond question. Only one hired gun/con man named De Peso whose testimony was obviously fraudulent and who attempted to purchase a good amount of the figurines before putting in his faked report stands between all other sources that support them as real. In fact they have gone far beyond reason to prove authenticity.

If JM is such a joke, why won't anyone go to a court of law and take his money? That would make it pretty easy if so? Hmmmm?

Anonymous said...

see: http://ncse.com/rncse/25/5-6/life-science-prize (oh no! the ncse! run!)

Major point: one can't use a court of law to just settle a question of fact. You can't file a law suit in an american court with out trying to enforce some sort of right. That isn't present here.

Assuming you could get to court: 10,000 quickly disappears after court costs (the winner pays), travel, prep time, experts,...easily could drop to zero. And then all the time to iron out all the rules (define the terms, rules of evidence,...).

And lastly, Dr M is insane. And if you won he might then just declare, as is quoted in the article above: “Evolutionist hallucinators so out of touch with reality are psychotic by medical dictionary definition, and therefore not mentally competent to contend for the Life Science Prize.”

lava

Anonymous whatsit said...

"If JM is such a joke, why won't anyone go to a court of law and take his money? That would make it pretty easy if so? Hmmmm?"

Did you seriously not read the comments in this comment thread?

Anonymous said...

"If JM is such a joke, why won't anyone go to a court of law and take his money? That would make it pretty easy if so? Hmmmm?"

Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty, and you soon discover that the pig enjoys it.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"If JM is such a joke, why won't anyone go to a court of law and take his money? That would make it pretty easy if so? Hmmmm?"

Hint: just because a crazy man says he's going to give you money doesn't mean he's going to give you money.

radar said...

Weak responses. The money is held by a third party. There is no danger of fraud. Anyone who reads the description can clearly see that it is a matter of presenting evidence in court with a US judge presiding over the process.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Who said anything about fraud? Look at lava's link about what happened when someone tried to engage Mastropaolo in the challenge.

(Incidentally, there was fraudulent behavior in that case - on the part of Mastropaolo, who for some unknown reason started deceptively e-mailing people under different names.

And did you still not read the comments above?

1. The challenge is so vague as to be meaningless, and it would be virtually impossible to nail such a vague premise down. Again, look at lava's link for a good example of this.

2. Exactly how does one get an actual US court to waste its time on something that has nothing to do with its remit?

3. Since for some reason the winner is supposed to pay the court costs, not much would be left of the 10 grand. Given the amount of time it would take to go through all the paperwork and trying to get a response out of Mr. "I'll do anything but answer the question" Mastropaolo, you're not looking at "easy cash", but at something substantially below minimum wage - for the privilege of tying up 10,000 bucks of your own. Oh and if the court costs are more than 10 grand, you lose some or all of that even if you win(!).

4. Why should "Darwinists" care about this lunatic's "challenge" when creationism as a scientific theory was already tested in the US court system not so long ago, and creationism was found lacking? In that case, creationists blame the judge, piling ad hominems on him - why should "Darwinists" think that creationists would behave more honorably in future?


The "weak responses" are yours, I'm afraid, since you've chosen not to address any of these issues.

Just out of curiosity - do creationists have any scientific evidence for devolution? Mastropaolo was very prickly about that subject and refused to provide any, despite being asked repeatedly. By his own logic, he has defaulted the issue.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Radar even reads the comments before responding sometimes. It is like talking to a rock.

Beside the threshold issue of not actually being able to use a US court to settle a question of fact, Whatsit and I have presented numerous reasons why no sane person would take on this challenge. Radar, blinded by his devotion to literal biblical truth, cannot see this(cue argument: you are so blinded by your devotion to darwinism...). So it goes.

lava

radar said...

Lava, are you in the habit of talking to rocks?

Guys, civil courts in the US will take a variety of cases. JM can present a civil case in which both sides give evidence and the judge decides who wins. So if you want to try it there is a valid way it can be done. My daughter is a law clerk and I have two pretty good friends who are lawyers and, trust me, way less credible issues than creation versus evolution wind up in court!

But that aside, how can you adhere to a hypothesis that has been so badly destroyed by evidence? Do you realize how hopelessly impossible Darwinism is in the light of all the design and information in the cell? You talk around the issue but incredulity is not a fallacy, it is a fact. Common sense tells you that if the random occurrence of just one simple self-replicating organism in all of time and space is a statistical impossibility, then the quintillions of varying organisms found on this planet completely demolish blind chance.

Furthermore, the chemistry at the molecular level prevents the necessary so-called building blocks of life to form and, if they did, they would have the problem of chirality. On top of that, where does the information come from? How can a cell exist without DNA and DNA without the cell and either one without ATP and etc? The symbiosis of life is astounding. Nothing is completely independent and very few organisms do not need other organisms to live. Certainly within an organism millions upon millions of functions are all working away unbeknownst to the creature, keeping it alive.

The thing that astounds me is that any thinking person could investigate these things in detail and continue to believe in uncaused random miracles while denying the far more reasonable concept of a Creator God.

Anonymous said...

Radar, I'm a lawyer. I spend a good deal of my time dealing with civil matters. You are completely wrong here.

Let's look at the constitution(this is federal, but the same basic line of reasoning applies to every state by way of their individual constitutions): Art III, sec. 2 "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made..." In a nutshell, there has to be a dispute over some combination of law and fact AND a court has to be able, under the laws, to provide some form of redress. You essentially have to be enforcing a right given to you through some form of law to gain access to the courts. This is explained further at wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause). This is common knowledge to any lawyer.

The situation presented by Dr. M is not an issue for the courts. It is purely a question of fact, we're not talking about enforcing rights. This is why Dr. M can't just "sue" someone like Richard Dawkins over this question and present him with a summons to appear in court (which, if Dr M could, and then that person didn't appear, that would result in a default judgment----Dr. M claims lots of darwinists have defaulted on his website--- his use of the term is completely improper legally...but rhetorically it could be argued to have some value in terms of trying to make his "prize" seem more official and mislead those who don't understand the law).

Under arbitration or some other form of alternative dispute resolution (which are completely outside the court system and are completely private-- yes, some courts do have mediators, but those are for use in cases once you can get into court by filing a valid action), one could hire a judge or former judge and have them preside over virtually anything (even a burping contest) and the parties could devise all of their own rules. But, the "venue" would not be a courthouse (as mandated by the rules...venue has a particular meaning when used legally) and while the judge could be a "superior court judge" as is mandated by the rules, he wouldn't be acting under his powers as a superior court judge.

Dr M uses the term "mini trial". You can google the meaning of this. It is a form of alternate dispute resolution. Private, outside of the court system, and could be used to judge bubble blowing contests. If Dr M is using the term mini-trial as it is conventionally used, then he should know the "venue" could not really be a courthouse. If he is using it in another way, I have no idea what he is talking about. But, Dr M is nuts, so who knows what he means.

I don't expect you to understand this and that is exactly the reason why anything you say or post has to be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism---- it shows your inability to objectively view anything that claims to support a literal translation of the bible. Only a fool would attempt to take on a lunatic like Dr M and his imaginary court case and mini-trial. And you just can't see that. So it goes...


lava

radar said...

So a great amount of verbiage to point out that JM is lampooning Darwinists with his challenges. Whereas you go to great length to demonstrate that there is no claim of lawlessness or damages caused and therefore the ordinary judiciary would not be involved in such a scenario, you then pretend that the mini-trial or an arbitration hearing or perhaps a deposition are all outside of the venue of the court itself.

If you carefully read his challenge, he presents an opportunity to utilize a judge in a trial setting. The rule of law in this case would likely be the same as binding arbitration. Both sides agree to present their arguments and depend upon the judge to make a decision for one side or the other.

I know lava is a lawyer but he is not telling you that in courts around the country there are hearings on civil matters, there are arbitration hearings, there are all sorts of legal hearings taking place that have nothing to do with Federal, State or Local laws. He knows that and I do, too.

Yes, when JM claims a default judgment against yet another Darwinist he knows there is no legal claim for damages, he is simply rattling cages. But he also knows that no Darwinist will face off against him in any kind of court setting (no matter what flavor) and depend upon evidence because the evidence for Darwinism is mythical.

radar said...

So lava and I agree on one thing - A Darwinist would be a fool to go to court against JM. Unless he likes losing money...

Anonymous said...

Radar,

You are so far out of your field, I don't even know where to start.

...you then pretend that the mini-trial or an arbitration hearing or perhaps a deposition are all outside of the venue of the court itself.

Why are you bringing up a deposition here? That is completely off point. Depositions have many meanings, but are not ways to decide disputes. The deposition I think you are referring to is a discovery device in a civil case.

A mini-trial (as conventionally used--what Dr M means when he uses this term is unclear) is a type of arbitration which is an Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) method. An ADR can be used within an actual court case (pendant ADR)(ex.mandated mediation before a divorce trial) or completely outside of the judicial system. The fact is that Dr. M can't file an action against a "darwinist" to have his challenge in the "venue" of a courthouse. Therefore, if an ADR method is used by Dr. M, it would have to be completely outside of the judicial system. The "venue" would not be a courthouse, as is mandated by Dr. M's rules.

Think of a burping contest. Could you get into a courthouse to have a superior court judge decide who is the best burper, based on a set of conditions agreed to beforehand by the contestants? No. For the same reasons, Dr. M's trial cannot get into court. There are no legal claims involving enforcing rights and seeking legal redress. But you could devise a legally binding contract, define a set of rules for the burping contest, put money in escrow, and then hire an "arbitrator" to decide according to the rules who is the best burper. This is arbitration. And sometimes people or companies who have valid lawsuits do decide to arbitrate the claim because it can save time/money/... (This is completely different than Dr. M's nonexistent claim or controversy).

Call your local court. Ask what kind of paperwork you need to file to have the judge decide a burping contest. Or explain that you and a friend want to argue in front of a judge the concept of evolution vs. creation. For either of those scenarios, they should just laugh at you.


----continued----

Anonymous said...

If you carefully read his challenge, he presents an opportunity to utilize a judge in a trial setting.

His rules are so short and vague and, with the whole "venue" and "judge" clauses, non-sensical, so nobody could really know what they were getting into to.

The rule of law in this case would likely be the same as binding arbitration.

What??? What is the rule of law in binding arbitration???? This is a non-sensical sentence because here is no set "rule of law" in binding arbitration. The arbiters generally agree to evidentiary rules and standards of proof that they will follow, and that varies between arbitrations basically by definition. Arbitration awards can be enforced through contract law, but I don't think that's what you mean either(like if one party cheated or broke the rules devised in the arbitration, one may have a fraud of breach of contract claim under contract law).

If you mean something else, please explain.

I know lava is a lawyer but he is not telling you that in courts around the country there are hearings on civil matters, there are arbitration hearings, there are all sorts of legal hearings taking place that have nothing to do with Federal, State or Local laws. He knows that and I do, too.

What do you mean when you say "civil matters"? Civil actions are in courts all of the time. Thousands on a daily basis. The thing they all have in common are that they are cases or controversies in the legal sense that has been presented to you a few times now.

What do you mean by "legal hearings"? ADRs, as explained above?

Any lawyer worth their salt would read this thread of comments and know you have no idea what you are talking about Radar. This is like the time you accused Obama of violating his lawerly duty as an "officer of the court" in not turning in some relative that overstayed their VISA to immigration officials. You didn't understand how the us justice system worked then, and you still don't.


lava

radar said...

Yes, Obama failed to do his duty as a lawyer, which is no surprise considering how he treats the Presidency.

Lava, you can shovel it deep and high but it remains true that JM offers to present a court, a judge and a venue in which factual evidence is presented and that judge will make a ruling based on the evidence. A Darwinist will never do this because he has no evidence to present.

Here is a description of arbitration as practiced in my state made by a professional arbitrator. He is an attorney, a judge, a mediator and an arbitrator. This is how he describes arbitration:

The Arbitration Process:

Arbitration is a process in which one or more neutrals (Arbitrators) render a decision after hearing arguments and reviewing evidence. The parties give the Arbitrator the role of making a decision for them. As your Arbitrator, my decision can either be binding or non-binding, depending upon the facts and the case type. A binding decision by me as your Arbitrator is final, and the decision can be enforced against either party. If the decision is non-binding, the decision I make is advisory in the aid of settlement.


I do not know lava's qualifications, but he is probably not an attorney/magistrate/judge/mediator and arbitrator with over 25 years experience like this gentleman I have just quoted. As you can clearly see from his description, the scenario JM lays out is absolutely a normal and oft-used way to settle disputes legally by a neutral party or parties (JM prefers one judge and that is most common) that can be determined to be final and binding before the hearing begins. In other words, lava, you are blowing smoke.

Binding arbitration is a matter of both parties being in agreement in advance that the matter will be settled by the arbiter once and for all. It doesn't require one side to be in violation of a law. It can and often is simply a disagreement that cannot be settled by the two opposing parties. Perhaps you would like to call this offer of JM's an offer of arbitration with a veteran judge as a neutral and qualified arbiter, able to distinguish between evidence and speculation. If that makes you happy, run with it. It is still a common practice, legal, and absolutely part of the legal system. So you are being deceptive or you simply do not pay much attention to what goes on outside of criminal courtrooms? I cannot speak for you, I can just point out that you are simply wrong.

It remains the fact that no one is willing to risk ten grand on evidence for Darwinism. Not one living soul! With a level playing field and both sides putting in ten grand into the kitty? Whether you call it a trial or arbitration or simply someone just saying to all of Darwinist science, "Put up or shut up" it is a challenge that Darwinists will not face.

Other men have offered money to Darwinists to present evidence that supports Darwinism over creationism. Some of them have been temporary challenges later dropped. JM, however, isn't going away. Every day he stands on the main street of science and challenges any Darwinist at all to take him on. They never do.

So I stand my ground. JM is offering a reasonable and often-used legal method by which evidence and arguments are presented to a judge and both parties agree to allow said judge to rule on the evidence and find for one side or the other. That is the law in this State and this State is in the USA. So you are wrong. Again.

Anonymous whatsit said...

It's always a delight when Radar digs in after clearly having been proven wrong.

Re. your comments on arbitration: there is such a thing as arbitration, but as Lava pointed out, that is not what Mastropaolo is proposing. And Lava is not wrong to point that out, as you claim.

"So I stand my ground. JM is offering a reasonable and often-used legal method by which evidence and arguments are presented to a judge and both parties agree to allow said judge to rule on the evidence and find for one side or the other."

Shorter Radar: "Must. Stick. To. Script. Must. Ignore. Factual. Input."

Seriously, Radar, are you incapable of absorbing Lava's comments above? Mastropaolo is not proposing any "reasonable and often-used legal method" to settle this non-legal dispute. It is technically and legally impossible to resolve this dispute in the venue of a courthouse, as Mastropaolo proposes.

Meanwhile, aside from the clear technical/legal impossibility of Mastropaolo's proposal, why should any "Darwinist" engage this lunatic when -

- "Darwinists" already had their day in court not so long ago, and creationism was determined not to be science

- creationists routinely dismiss that particular case because the judge was allegedly corrupt, ignorant etc. and there is no reason not to expect a similar reaction here

- Mastropaolo himself seems utterly incapable of carrying on a reasonable conversation, of presenting any evidence at all for devolution, and apparently is not above sending out e-mails using fake names, I suppose for his own amusement. This does not speak well for a speedy resolution to any process to resolve this dispute, and since it is well known that time is money, this would soon turn out to be much less than minimum wage...

- ... which is compounded by the fact that Mastropaolo's terms include having the winner pay the court costs, further reducing the winnings - and even making it possible that one could win the court case and not receive any money whatsoever and even pay money on top, all for the privilege of having tied up 10K of your own money and having argued with a crackpot like Mastropaolo for months

- the terms of the challenge are impossibly vague, and as we've already seen in Lava's link, nailing down evolution to a rather standard definition is not something Mastropaolo would agree to.


Now, all this aside, let's not forget that Radar and Mastropaolo seem to be particularly allergic to a question centrally related to this:

What is the scientific evidence for devolution?

Anonymous said...

Yes, Obama failed to do his duty as a lawyer, which is no surprise considering how he treats the Presidency.

Do you really think every lawyer has a duty as an "officer of the court" to turn in any person they suspect is committing or has committed a crime?


I'm not going to respond to the rest of your comment. I could continue to explain this concept, but I just don't think you will ever understand.

lava

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I could continue to explain this concept, but I just don't think you will ever understand."

Lave, you've explained it as clearly as is possible, and all Radar had in return was "you can shovel it deep and high but it remains true that JM offers to present a court, a judge and a venue in which factual evidence is presented and that judge will make a ruling based on the evidence" - which of course is clearly not true based on the facts about the legal system that you've explained.

Radar's taken quite a few hits lately - as he runs away from one thing to the next, he keeps walking right into the next losing argument. From YEC being falsified by C-14 dating to no modern organisms in the bottom-most layers to Mastropaolo's "challenge" being a non-starter.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

So, Radar, where exactly is the scientific evidence for devolution? Surely it's the kind of thing that lends itself to scientific examination, a verifiable, falsifiable claim or two.

It can't just be down to this charlatan Mastropaolo with his absurd "challenge", can it?

Can it?

Is that how creationist aim to do "science" these days?

radar said...

Lava, I gave you the legal language for a court session as proposed by JM, which is in fact a common Arbitration scenario. My source is a judge who has served as judge, magistrate and also medidator and arbiter and of course got his start as an attorney. He is still a practicing attorney.

The rest of you? I clearly gave lava the legal language for a court hearing as proposed by JM and pointed out that it is a template used for binding arbitration between two competing sides.

Now, lava can claim what he wants, I presented the opinion of a longtime court official and judge who confirmed that JM's proposal is both legal and is a common remedy to decide issues between two sides. I KNOW my source is a lawyer and judge. I have no idea if lava is an attorney or not. But if he doesn't recognize and acknowledge the description of arbitration proceedings, he must be a very new and inexperienced one.

Anonymous said...

previous Radar quotes: "If JM is such a joke, why won't anyone go to a court of law and take his money?

...can clearly see that it is a matter of presenting evidence in court with a US judge presiding over the process.

Guys, civil courts in the US will take a variety of cases."

From your last comment, you are getting closer to understanding so I'm suckered into responding one more time. I didn't disagree with a thing you posted from the judge. He provided a great definition of arbitration. He also wrote on the same page that you copied and pasted the definition from: Instead, you can resolve your dispute yourself through Arbitration or Mediation, usually much faster than a Court can....Don’t let your case drag out in Court for months or years. Call me and I will try to help you resolve your dispute in a confidential, dignified setting.

We both agree that the life science prize could be done through arbitration. Right?

We both agree that the losing party is then legally obligated to pay the winner. Right?

What you don't seem to get:
(1) this arbitration happens outside the court system, because an actual court of law is not designed or authorized to settle debates that have no legal claims
(2) the loser in arbitration is indebted to pay through the principles of contract law, which is a different legal obligation that uses different enforcement mechanisms than when one wins an award in actual civil suit in the courts.
(3) "venue" has a particular meaning legally, misused by Dr M if the life science prize is actually a proposal for arbitration.
(4) "a superior court judge" could well be the arbiter, but he would be acting as a private arbiter and not under his powers as a state judge.
(5) I clearly gave lava the legal language for a court hearing as proposed by JM.. A court-like hearing. Not a court hearing. There is a difference.
(6) while arbitration is a process authorized by law, it does not make it "legal" in the in-front-of-a-judge-in-a-courthouse sort of way

Radar, call your local court. Ask if you and a friend could file an action in your local court where you debate creation v evolution in a mini-trial where "Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated." (if you were to come back with a yes answer, please get some specifics--- the name of this type of action, what paperwork you have to file in order to get in the court,...)

lava

radar said...

Lava,

Since you are actually giving me an answer instead of the wild unfounded claims and rants of other anonymous commenters or Woolf, I will take the time to answer you.

My daughter works at the local county courts. She's a law clerk who has the confidence of the judge, so she is able to file briefs, fill in paperwork of all kinds and can stand in to do various court duties when needed (Bailiff, for instance). She got her paralegal degree but marriage and children came ahead of becoming a lawyer. Like many paralegals and law clerks, she does much of the work of an attorney, however.

She says that arbitration and mediation can and do take place within the government center in our County, where the judge I referenced practices law.

So, if JM's county is like ours, yes, binding arbitration would be a legal means of presenting evidence and settling the "dispute" he has challenged Darwinists to settle.

Since he is presenting the challenge and has promised a circuit court judge and a legal setting, is it not reasonable to expect that he has already found out what paperwork is required in his county to set this up and what judge(s) would be available to preside over the hearing.

So if he has done this, then there is validity to the offer he makes to Darwinists. Both sides present the money that will be assigned by the judgment of the presiding judge-arbitrator and evidence is then presented so that said arbitrator can make a ruling. Why should you or I care what paperwork JM has to file to make this happen? We can both envision how he could do it, assuming we both agree that arbitration can be binding, that arbitration hearings can and do take place in courtrooms (and there are many varieties of courtrooms in my county). I have attended and been a witness in both arbitration and mediation procedures and I have been a witness in civil court matters and one criminal case.

The criminal case was in the standard dark brown wood/witness stand/attorney desks and audience area such as commonly seen on television. But the mediation and arbitration hearings were also presided over by a judge/mediator and the hearing was in the government center/courthouse. The presiding officer was still an officer of the court and witnesses were sworn in.

Why have I been in such settings? For child custody hearings, for civil suit not involving me, for a couple of contentious divorce cases in which I had to be a witness and even a matter concerning a wolf-dog bite. I also had to attend to a personal matter that was to protect my children from a relative which I will not expand upon. But every single kind of dispute in various venues were all conducted in a courthouse.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"every single kind of dispute in various venues were all conducted in a courthouse."

... because they were all legal disputes, yes?

You seem to have abandoned defending Mastropaolo's aim to settle this matter in the venue of a court, so can we agree that the way Mastropaolo has presented his challenge is actually not defensible?

"She says that arbitration and mediation can and do take place within the government center in our County, where the judge I referenced practices law.

So, if JM's county is like ours, yes, binding arbitration would be a legal means of presenting evidence and settling the "dispute" he has challenged Darwinists to settle."

I sense a logical gap here. Arbitration and mediation take place in many contexts (including non-legal ones), so sure, one could have some kind of mediation process in this matter of creationism vs. mainstream science. A peer-reviewed scientific journal would be one such method, for example.

But such a process is not what Mastropaolo has proposed.

"Since he is presenting the challenge and has promised a circuit court judge and a legal setting, is it not reasonable to expect that he has already found out what paperwork is required in his county to set this up and what judge(s) would be available to preside over the hearing. "

Given the tenuous grasp on reality that Mastropaolo has demonstrated so far, no, it would not be "reasonable to expect" that at all. It's possible, sure, but if that's the direction Mastropaolo is planning on taking this in anyway, then why doesn't he adjust his challenge accordingly?

As it stands, his challenge is not technically possible.

(That's the first obstacle. There are other reasons why no sane person would enter such a contest with Mastropaolo, and they've all been pointed out to you.)